Are Fetal Heartbeat Laws Constitutional? (and the History of Roe v. Wade) — Real Law Review
Articles,  Blog

Are Fetal Heartbeat Laws Constitutional? (and the History of Roe v. Wade) — Real Law Review


46 Comments

  • John Crawford

    The flip side of deregulated abortion clinics is that they often have lower standards than most medical clinics. It's interesting those for gun control are all for regulations similar how you explain the regulations of abortion clinics, in that major retailers choose not to sell guns any more because of all the regulatory red tape. But yet, liberals practically want to give a free for all on abortions to the point that it's not even a joke to say they want post birth abortions to be legal. The lax standards for abortion clinics can make them no better than a back alley abortion. Or have you already forgotten about Gosnell? Not to mention there are more current cases of abuses by abortion clinics that get covered up because abortion is the sacred cow on the left, so they get a blind eye paid to them by liberal law makers, judges, and lawyers.

  • John Crawford

    Also important to note about various similar laws, especially in as much as one can compare humans with the rest of the animal kingdom.

    1. You can be fined and/or jailed for disturbing a sea turtle nest. (https://tapeunit.com/sea-turtle-101-what-are-the-penalties-for-disturbing-the-sea-turtles/).

    2. Even though it has been delisted under the Endangered Species Act, the bald eagle is still protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, meaning one is prohibited from taking, possessing, selling, purchasing, bartering, offering to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit, can lead to a first offense fine of $5,000 or one year imprisonment with $10,000 or not more than two years in prison for a second conviction. Felony convictions carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment. The fine doubles for an organization. (https://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html)

    Yet, when it comes to human life, our laws should be more lenient than these laws regarding animals? Comstock followed essentially the same sort of legal framework as these for protecting animals, as did the regulations regarding abortion clinics. But apparently we can say it's a 'right' when it comes to killing unborn humans, but perfectly fine to impose when it comes to the rest of the animal kingdom. Thus, it would be better to be born as a bald eagle or a sea turtle if you want your right to life from the moment of conception to be protected.

  • Jan Sitkowski

    This is why Europe is much better, because most of the countries simply can CHANGE their constitution, write their own constitution, or simply change the laws without needing to change the constitution. No need to rely on such stupid thing as "court precedent". Such vague terms always make things worse. No matter which side you are on, if you think that this precedent law is any good, look at what's happening now – Your Supreme Court can overturn decisions of the earlier court, then in the future same can happen, with pretty much no democratic process being involved in the decision.

    If you could instead just write new constitution, or write new articles, or simply write new laws that apply to everyone, then it would be much more clear cut and obvious, more logical. People should be able to decide, what is the law that govern their society.

  • Oline Wright

    so based on these could a woman after viability happens to seek to have birth induced? Afterall all she would be doing is giving birth at a time of her choice because she does not want the fetus to go full term. It would then require the hospital or clinic to do all possible to save the fetus's life. This would allow her to not have to carry the fetus full term and thus she could sign over the fetus to the state for adoption. That would likely be the best current solution to these laws demanding that a woman must not rid herself of what could be considered either a parasite or symbiont within her body (based on the fact that fetuses will if not receiving enough nutrients from the woman's diet to grow properly they will effectively rob the woman of those nutrients (for example robbing the woman of calcium in her bones making her bones more prone to breakage and other diseases affecting weakened bones).

  • Free Man

    Webster's Dictionary defines life as, "the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body," and, "an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction". At the point of conception, the baby is forming. They are growing. They are life. They are alive. They are a person.

  • Jonesso

    does it matter if it's constitutional or not that someone wants an abortion? if someone doesn't want someone else to have an abortion then it shouldn't make it so that it should be illegal?

  • Nate Decker

    It felt like there was an initial attempt to present a facade of objectivism and impartiality, but certain choices in this video betrayed a bias. In an effort to provide context, you went back to the puritanical laws that preceded anti-abortion laws, but then were completely silent on Margaret Sanger, the person who started Planned Parenthood. She was an open racist and created PP for the express purpose of exterminating black people. Is that not also relevant history and context?

    You referred to the laws as "draconian", but is a prohibition against murdering your own children "draconian"?

    The 14th amendment was discussed as an implied "right to privacy" by virtue of "emanations and penumbra". You know what the 14th amendment actually says?

    "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (emphasis added)

    The 14th amendment doesn't protect abortion, it protects the child.

    Roe v. Wade is a bad ruling because a pregnancy is not "the potential for life", it IS life. Life begins at conception. That is a scientific fact.

  • Nate Decker

    @6:00 a statistic is cited that there were 2700 deaths from illegal abortion in 1930. This is a misleading statistic and its inclusion in this video is another example of bias. The 2700 number included deaths from "therapeutic abortions" (legal ones) and "spontaneous abortions" (miscarriage). So it is HIGHLY deceptive to use this as an indicator that illegal abortion was more dangerous than legal abortion. Most deaths in 1930 were a result of sepsis (infection) and the number of deaths reduced over time, not as a result of the procedure being made legal, but because of the rise of anti-biotics and better sanitary healthcare. Illegal abortions were principally performed by doctors.

    By 1959, a leading researcher wrote: “Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957, there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921, there were 144 abortion deaths, in 1951 there were only 15.”

    In the July 1960 edition of The American Journal of Public Health (13 years before abortion became legalized), Dr. Mary Calderone, founder of SIECUS and medical director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, wrote:

    "90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such… They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is… Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians."

    The legality of the abortion procedure has no bearing on the safety of the procedure. The only reason to try and create that perception is to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the viewer.

  • linkdude09

    So here is my opinion. I believe that children have a right to be born and raised in a happy and loving home. That might be an idealistic view that isn't always met and that might not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but it should in my mind be the goal for any good person. A woman seeking an abortion who is forced by law to not get one may become resentful of that unwanted child and therefore not provide a loving home or worse abuse that child. Would every woman follow that example? No, but enough would that I think abortion should be available and affordable up to the end of the second trimester. I think these fetal heartbeat laws are reprehensible for the simple fact that they are guaranteed to generate a neglectful or even abusive environment for at least one, but likely many children if they are allowed to stand.

  • Anthony PC

    but WHY a heart beat ??? of all things…

    why not the formation of distinct genitalia? Or the first kick? Why not the toe nail bill ??
    IF the concern were genuinely about the ethics of causing harm/pain to a living being, than I'd expect something like a BRAIN WAVE Bill. since, you know, the ability to experience pain or any degree of consciousness at all is produced by our BRAINS. 🧠 👈 That's this organ.
    Can some religious conservative in the comments please explain to me what the relevance of the muscle in the circulatory system is for changing the legal status of a human fetus? Other than the metaphorical significance that pulls on emotional "heart strings" of already born people.

    Evidence that something has gained consciousness (the ability to experience/feel — not just awake vs asleep) is what I personally care about when judging if it is apt for . ethical consideration.
    e.g. I don't care whether you skip a whole pile of stones across a river, but if you start throwing puppies in, then I care.

    That isn't to say that aborting a pregnancy should be outlawed after the first trimester necessarily — or whenever a central nervous system might burgeon into some rudimentary awareness. It just would mean that our situation goes from being about only one sentient individual (AKA a "PERSON") to now including two beings in the ethical equation.
    But most anti-abortion arguments I've heard only afford any consideration to just one of the two. and it's not the impregnated female person.

  • Anthony PC

    These are the people and states which will consider it your right to kill any intruder in your property, even if they're unarmed and make no threat, no questions asked — but when something even incapable of awareness is unwanted in your own body, changing your biology, then they'll punish you as a criminal if you try to remove it before it grows a brain.

    Obviously no one wants to get in the position of needing an abortion, least of all after the first trimester. Both for the sake of the host and out of empathy for a potentially conscious fetus which could experience pain in later months.
    But as a matter a principle, if by some accident I, a fully cognoscente person with a sense of identity and emotional connections with others, and a life of memories etc, got shrunk down and stuck in your guts, I would understand if you'd want me removed.
    Of course I'll use my developed sense of self preservation and language to persuade you to hold off on making a decision for as long as it takes to search for an option which could remove me safely for both of us…. and IF there was a viable method to preserve me (because I'm a sentient being, more capable of feeling harmed than a small number of stem cells could) then I'd argue that it should be your moral duty to save my life, at very little expense to you.
    But if there's truly no way I'd be able to live outside of your body, then I still think it's your right to choose to have me removed.

    I'd thank you for letting me hang out in you and use your body for as long as I need, and that may be the morally VIRTUOUS choice to make, considering that I'm capable of suffering.
    But your altruism should not be ethically obligatory, and certainly not forced by the state. IMHO.

  • Anthony PC

    1:25 I like how Alabama's state flag is just a big red X.

    DO NOT HAVE SEX HERE if you aren't willing to produce a baby each time, God willing.

  • Matthew Shields

    May I point out that sometimes constitutional is based off an informed opinion. Particularly on the constitutional merits of abortion, were some consider it woman's rights and others consider it murder. For those who view abortion as murder the precedent privacy does it hold constitutionally compared to the pursuit of life ( in this case the fetuses life).

  • HagenigeTaru

    Rape and Incest are bad, but what makes someone think they have a right to kill a child just because they went through those instances? And before you say it's not a child yet, show me a mother who EVER thought to themselves during pregnancy that it's not a child yet because it's not born.

  • Forum Arcade

    Has anyone else realized that human fetuses are parasitic organisms? They steal the resources of their host body, and continue to feed on them after gestation until sufficiently matured.

    Children are a sexually transmitted disease.

  • That80sGuy1972

    The people advocating faux label of "pro-life" don't understand what a true counterpoint to their case would be. They don't understand how extreme their argument is. Pro-choice is rational. The state has no right to regulate what goes on between patient and doctor. Even if it crosses that line the state has no right to regulate what goes on withing or on a person's body, that's a slippery slope to state-sanctioned implants, bar codes, ID chips, tracking implants, surgical alterations, etc. The actual counterpoint to "pro-life" sophistry is this: The mother has the right to kill her child within the first year of its life after it is born. The compromise is the pro-choice position. Nobody is willing to go to the same extreme as the asinine "pro-life" stand in the other direction so pro-choice rational protections will always be attacked.
    By the way, politicians who tend to advocate the "pro-life" stance only defend the pro-birth aspect of it. They are usually pro-death-penalty, pro-war, and are against taxpayer money helping the children and their mothers that are forced to give birth to them in the way of feeding, clothing, housing, educating, etc. of said forced families. "The mother can always give the kid up". Yeah, that works out just peaches and cream too (underfunded far too much too so manpower in making that not have the kid abused is cut). It comes down to morons saying "Just stop having sex." Yes, morons.

  • Ray Minifie

    So if an intentional abortion is akin to murder in some states, would a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) be considered manslaughter?

  • Cody Barnett

    I read that Jane Roe or Norma was not raped. I could’ve swore you said in the video that she was raped or did I miss something?

  • Cody Barnett

    I read that Jane Roe or Norma was not raped. I could’ve swore you said in the video that she was raped or did I miss something?

  • Leira Whitehart

    I may be pro-life, but even I admit that Georgia's laws are a bit too harsh, as I think the death penalty for this is just ridiculous.

  • BittersweetRemix

    Could you do a legal review over the current red flag laws that been enacted in various states, and those currently being proposed?

  • Second Path

    Just a bunch of Christians shoving their religious agenda into laws in this "Free" United states. Yeah, free if you're a White Christian.

  • potitishogun2961997

    "Young one, it's a simple calculus. This universe is finite, its resources finite… If life is left unchecked, life… will cease to exist. It NEEDS… CORRECTION…"

    Legalize abortion, people! Or our overpopulation problem will get even bigger!

  • Pie Pierrot

    I don't even know what to say, I am just so enraged. A fetus does NOT have more rights than a woman! America has gone to hell in a handbasket, and I want out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *